If you don't like something the solution is more regulation

[suchmoon]

Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456

That's right, let's close down businesses we don't like, fuck the constitution and all its amendments. A wonderful caricature of what the Republican party used to stand for... pretended to stand for... something like that.

Edit May 28: Trump has signed an executive order aimed at creating regulations for social media: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

[1715036533]

1715036533

[1715036533]

1715036533

[1715036533]

1715036533

[TECSHARE]

Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456

That's right, let's close down businesses we don't like, fuck the constitution and all its amendments. A wonderful caricature of what the Republican party used to stand for... pretended to stand for... something like that.

I thought the left liked regulation. I guess they only like it when they are doing the regulating.

[suchmoon]

I thought the left liked regulation. I guess they only like it when they are doing the regulating.

I know it takes a lot of effort for you to stay on topic so if you're unable to do it please start a REEEEEEEEE: THE LEFT SENSOR SHIPS TRUMP thread.

Trump is the one threatening to regulate social media and he's speaking on behalf of the Republicans. Do you support regulating and/or closing down Twitter? How about Bitcointalk? Should we only post pro-Trump stuff here just so that he doesn't decide to shut us down too?

[BADecker]

Joe Rogan didn't like Youtube regulation. He is moving his multimillion viewers over to Spotify.

If people like regulation, they might be regulated out of existence. This means that if we don't like regulation, it's time we regulate the regulators out of existence.

[TECSHARE]

I thought the left liked regulation. I guess they only like it when they are doing the regulating.

I know it takes a lot of effort for you to stay on topic so if you're unable to do it please start a REEEEEEEEE: THE LEFT SENSOR SHIPS TRUMP thread.

Trump is the one threatening to regulate social media and he's speaking on behalf of the Republicans. Do you support regulating and/or closing down Twitter? How about Bitcointalk? Should we only post pro-Trump stuff here just so that he doesn't decide to shut us down too?

I am very much on topic, you just don't like my reply. Social media platforms want to curate content like publishers while also receiving the safe harbor protection from liabilities as a public platform. They can't have it both ways.



"Trump Is RIGHT, Twitter Is Interfering In The Election With FAKE NEWS "Fact Check" On Voter Fraud"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZELaKn4vXrc

[suchmoon]

I am very much on topic, you just don't like my reply. Social media platforms want to curate content like publishers while also receiving the safe harbor protection from liabilities as a public platform. They can't have it both ways.

They're not having it both ways. Moderation is allowed by the same law that provides the protection. They're not creating the content themselves.

[Gyfts]

I don't think conservative voices should be silenced on Twitter but you can't go around dictating how private businesses operate. This is a really bad slippery slope to go down.

[TECSHARE]

I am very much on topic, you just don't like my reply. Social media platforms want to curate content like publishers while also receiving the safe harbor protection from liabilities as a public platform. They can't have it both ways.

They're not having it both ways. Moderation is allowed by the same law that provides the protection. They're not creating the content themselves.

Publishers don't enjoy that protection.



What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money?

You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it.

[LoyceMobile]

So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!

[TECSHARE]

So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!

Not really, if you think about it. The left control the media. The left control social media. Where exactly is he supposed to be able to get a neutral platform? Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

[suchmoon]

Publishers don't enjoy that protection.

They're not publishing anything. If Trump doesn't like how his tweets are presented next to a fact check or whatever the latest tantrum is about (doesn't seem that any if his "speech" was removed or modified) then he can surely use Facebook where he claims he's #1.

What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money?

You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it.

Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabo utwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhata boutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwha taboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutw hataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabou twhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout.

What about the billions of dollars of in-kind media time Trump gets with his rallies and press briefings and other stuff. But more importantly, what about the topic of this thread, namely the attempt of the government to tell businesses to broadcast government propaganda and to do it in a certain way (e.g. no fact checking).

Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

If he's so inclined, but there is also whitehouse.gov, which is accessible to anyone just as Twitter is.

[TwitchySeal]

So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!

Not really, if you think about it. The left control the media. The left control social media.

Those articles and blogs and networks and youtube channels and radio stations that often complain about how the media is unfair to trump and fake news....they're also the media.

fox, breitbart, zerohedge, daily caller, newsmax, NY Post, tim pools youtube channel  <==all media

Where exactly is he supposed to be able to get a neutral platform? Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

He's the president, so...he could have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, State of the Union, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could just post what he wants on any federal website, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

[suchmoon]

Trump has signed an executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Lots of whining there but the main part seems to be instructing the FCC and other agencies to create regulations for social media.

[TwitchySeal]

[TECSHARE]

Publishers don't enjoy that protection.

They're not publishing anything. If Trump doesn't like how his tweets are presented next to a fact check or whatever the latest tantrum is about (doesn't seem that any if his "speech" was removed or modified) then he can surely use Facebook where he claims he's #1.

What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money?

You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it.

Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabo utwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhata boutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwha taboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutw hataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabou twhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout.

What about the billions of dollars of in-kind media time Trump gets with his rallies and press briefings and other stuff. But more importantly, what about the topic of this thread, namely the attempt of the government to tell businesses to broadcast government propaganda and to do it in a certain way (e.g. no fact checking).

Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

If he's so inclined, but there is also whitehouse.gov, which is accessible to anyone just as Twitter is.

I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it? What could go wrong? Yeah, right because how many people read whitehouse.gov?

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov current rank #3,290

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com #48

Totally comparable! Of course you would love it if you could force your opponents to be relegated to carrier pigeon while you use fiber optic cables. These services are clearly operating not as public forums, but as publishers by selectively removing and silencing political opposition, and providing millions of dollars worth of unreported in kinds donations. This is not acceptable regardless how much you lie to pretend none of this is happening.

So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!

Not really, if you think about it. The left control the media. The left control social media.

Those articles and blogs and networks and youtube channels and radio stations that often complain about how the media is unfair to trump and fake news....they're also the media.

fox, breitbart, zerohedge, daily caller, newsmax, NY Post, tim pools youtube channel  <==all media

Where exactly is he supposed to be able to get a neutral platform? Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

He's the president.

OOo you found a whole handful of them, I guess that means they aren't locked out, censored, silenced, and muted by all the most popular services claiming to be public forums while they act as publishers selecting who gets to have a voice. If any of you had a halfway decent argument you wouldn't be afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard. The only people who rely on silencing opposition are ones who have no argument to stand on.


"Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows "

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/



" The Deep Roots of Trump’s War on the PressLong before cries of ‘fake news,’ there was Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/26/the-deep-roots-trumps-war-on-the-press-218105



"American views: Trust, media and democracy"

https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-trust-media-and-democracy/?utm_source=link_newsv9&utm_campaign=item_235796



"92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news"

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html



"Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines"

https://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/



"Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect"

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect



"These Three Charts Confirm Conservatives' Worst Fears About American Culture"

https://www.businessinsider.com/proof-of-liberal-bias-in-hollywood-media-and-academia-2014-11?



"Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias"

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/



"Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash"

https://publicintegrity.org/politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/



"Special Report: Columbia University"

https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/special-report-columbia-university



"Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican"

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053



"The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples"

https://www.westernjournal.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/



"Audit suggests Google favors a small number of major outlets"

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php



"Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'"

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning



"How the liberal leanings of Google, Facebook shape the political landscape"

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/23/internet-giants-show-power-to-shape-politics/


If you believe this machine isn't eventually going to be turned against you too, you are a fucking moron.

[TwitchySeal]

Publishers don't enjoy that protection.

They're not publishing anything. If Trump doesn't like how his tweets are presented next to a fact check or whatever the latest tantrum is about (doesn't seem that any if his "speech" was removed or modified) then he can surely use Facebook where he claims he's #1.

What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money?

You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it.

Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabo utwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhata boutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwha taboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutw hataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabou twhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout.

What about the billions of dollars of in-kind media time Trump gets with his rallies and press briefings and other stuff. But more importantly, what about the topic of this thread, namely the attempt of the government to tell businesses to broadcast government propaganda and to do it in a certain way (e.g. no fact checking).

Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?

If he's so inclined, but there is also whitehouse.gov, which is accessible to anyone just as Twitter is.

I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it? What could go wrong? Yeah, right because how many people read whitehouse.gov?

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov current rank #3,290

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com #48

Totally comparable! Of course you would love it if you could force your opponents to be relegated to carrier pigeon while you use fiber optic cables. These services are clearly operating not as public forums, but as publishers by selectively removing and silencing political opposition, and providing millions of dollars worth of unreported in kinds donations. This is not acceptable regardless how much you lie to pretend none of this is happening.

He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

How about instead of doing a google search to prove whatever argument you're trying to win, and then posting the first 10 results with headlines you like (which are *pretty much* always just media links), do a google search for the opposite - and then actually read more than the headlines - and be open minded.

[TECSHARE]

He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

I am sure you will regardless of the facts of the matter. You will note all of your examples are the equivalent of yelling out of a window in the middle of the night, while the platforms claiming to be for public use are broadcast into nearly every home globally onto multiple devices all day every day. They are not at all comparable. You smug disingenuous cunts have no idea what you are doing. You think this serves you, but there is going to come a day when this machinery is turned upon you too, and then it will be too fucking late to do anything about it. It is too bad you all are too stupid to recognize a trap when you see one. Enjoy your cheese before you get your neck snapped.

[DanWork]

Trump does kind of have a point, and regulating it benefits both sides. Places like Twitter have massive power, and someone with bias who works over can just label something somebody said as fake news, then that can have major consequences. That would be for both parties.

[suchmoon]

I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it?

Please refrain from making shit up. No, election interference is not ok. Fact checking is ok. Switching to Facebook is ok if you don't like Twitter. Creating your own site is ok.

Yeah, right because how many people read whitehouse.gov?

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov current rank #3,290

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com #48

Nobody "reads" the whole Twitter either. People follow content that they want on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, whatever. And Twitter has a lot more stuff on it than just Trump so obviously it's going to be more visited. But Trump could easily tweet "go to whitehouse.com to read my shit". It's not like opening twitter.com has Trump's shit on the front page anyway so he gets the exposure from elsewhere.

OOo you found a whole handful of them, I guess that means they aren't locked out, censored, silenced, and muted by all the most popular services claiming to be public forums while they act as publishers selecting who gets to have a voice. If any of you had a halfway decent argument you wouldn't be afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard. The only people who rely on silencing opposition are ones who have no argument to stand on.

Not being popular doesn't mean you're censored. Breaking TOS of a service and getting banned doesn't mean you're censored. The government telling a private business what kind of content it must allow or not allow might be considered censorship.

I'd love to see this dispute in the Supreme Court. The pretzels of Trump-supporting free speech and anti-regulation advocates would be delicious.

[TwitchySeal]

He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?)  Should I go on?

I am sure you will regardless of the facts of the matter. You will note all of your examples are the equivalent of yelling out of a window in the middle of the night, while the platforms claiming to be for public use are broadcast into nearly every home globally onto multiple devices all day every day. They are not at all comparable.

Yeah.  They are comparable.  Few people in the world have a platform comparable to the President of America.  Just being the president is a platform.  If you don't like how Jack Dorsey runs the app that he literally built from scratch....go build your own or become a majority share holder?

You smug disingenuous cunts have no idea what you are doing. You think this serves you, but there is going to come a day when this machinery is turned upon you too, and then it will be too fucking late to do anything about it. It is too bad you all are too stupid to recognize a trap when you see one. Enjoy your cheese before you get your neck snapped.

Hey we're just having a discussion.  No need to get all worked up like that.